So began Roy Orbison’s 1960 rock ballad which propelled the previously unknown singer to sudden fame. Orbison’s song struck a psychological note with many people, although it referred only to a limited kind of loneliness – that experienced by someone cut off from a romantic relationship. Ultimate loneliness, of course, is experienced by those who have lost most or even all of their friendships and relationships. For many people, that kind of loneliness can be psychologically devastating.

Interestingly, the Bible has something to say about the lonely of this world – but far less than you probably expect. The word “lonely” only appears a few times in the Old Testament and does not appear in the New Testament at all relative to people – only “lonely” places! This is probably because in the society of biblical times people lived in more tightly knit extended families, and loneliness was far less common. We can see this in one of the few scriptures in the Bible that does mention loneliness. When King David wrote “God sets the lonely in families …” (Psalm 68:6), he does not say that God gives the lonely new friends, but sets them back in a family setting where loneliness is not an issue.

Today, especially in the Western world, where children commonly move away from their homes as they get older, individuals of both the younger and older generations are much more likely to experience loneliness. Psychological and medical studies have shown that under these circumstances loneliness can become a severe psychological discomfort affecting not only happiness, but also health and even life expectancy.

The problem is compounded because loneliness is often difficult to diagnose or for others to recognize. We soon become aware if our neighbors are injured or ill, but even extreme loneliness may not be noticed by others, especially because lonely people often keep to themselves and may even hide their loneliness because of pride or other factors.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to reach out to the lonely just as we have a responsibility toward those who are hurting in any other way. The psalmist’s comment that “God sets the lonely in families…” needs individuals and families who are willing to make that possible. We can be the family that God wishes to use by inviting a lonely neighbor to dinner occasionally, stopping by to see if an aged neighbor needs help with anything, including widowed neighbors in home Bible study invitations, or in many other ways.

But we should also remember that any lonely neighbors we may have are only the tip of the iceberg of loneliness. Many of our Christian brothers and sisters around the world suffer loneliness because they are rejected and cut off from their own families because of their faith. Others suffer extreme loneliness in situations where they are imprisoned for their beliefs and cut off from all meaningful fellowship or friendship.

It is probably true that only the lonely can fully understand the extent of the problem of loneliness, but through any action we can accomplish and through prayer we can set the lonely in families they otherwise would not have.

The region of Samaria that is frequently mentioned in the New Testament has a colorful history that helps us understand many things written in the four Gospels. ​samaria was the area between Judea and Galilee that had been the northern kingdom of Israel after Judah and Israel split into two monarchies following the death of Solomon around 931 BC. Some two hundred years later, in 726–722 BC, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V invaded the region, captured the capital city of Samaria and deported many of its inhabitants to Assyrian cities in Mesopotamia. But some of the Samaritans remained in their land and eventually mixed with other groups who moved into the area.

This mixed – partly Jewish and partly pagan – population represented the Samaritans of Jesus’ day. Although they worshiped the same God as the Jews and strictly upheld the commands of the Mosaic law, their religion was rejected by Judaism – both because of their partly Gentile ancestry, and because the Samaritans accepted only the first five books of the Bible and worshipped in their temple on Mount Gerazim in Samaria rather than in the Temple in Jerusalem.As a result, the Samaritans were despised by most Jews – who treated their northerly neighbors terribly, as virtual “untouchables.” The depths of this terrible disdain can be seen in the fact that Samaritans could not even be accepted as converts to Judaism. Rather than “contaminate” themselves by passing through Samaritan territory, Jews who travelled between Judea and Galilee would often cross over the River Jordan in order to bypass Samaria, rather than going through the area. Those who did take the direct route would hurry so as not to stay overnight there and would even refuse to eat in that area.

The attitude is reflected in later statements in the Jewish Talmud such as: “He that eats the bread of the Samaritans is like to one that eats the flesh of swine” (Mishnah Shebiith 8.10). Perhaps understandably, the Samaritans developed a deep antipathy toward the Jews, and there is no question that there was a great deal of mutual hostility and religious rejection between the two cultures (Luke 9:52-53).

This was the situation in the society into which Jesus was born. When we understand this background, we see how remarkable Jesus’ teaching and actions regarding the Samaritans truly were. We can sense the shock among many of his Jewish listeners when Christ told the parable of the “Good Samaritan,” an individual he held up as being not only “our neighbor,” but also someone more righteous than a representative priest and Levite – the Jewish religious professionals of that day (Luke 10:25–37).

The nature of Jewish-Samaritan relations (or lack of them) helps us to realize what a statement it was that Jesus chose to pass directly through Samaria instead of crossing the Jordan to avoid the area on the way to Jerusalem (John 4:4-5). When Jesus spoke with a Samaritan woman outside one of their cities, it was directly contrary to Jewish custom (John 4:9), and when he agreed to eat with the Samaritans of the area – and even stay with them overnight – it was the ultimate outrage from the perspective of the Jews: Jesus accepted the Samaritans as being no different from the Jews themselves.

When Jesus healed ten lepers from the border of Samaria (Luke 17:11-16) – at least one of whom was a Samaritan (vs. 16) – he showed he loved the Samaritans just as much as anyone else. In his teaching and serving alike Jesus accepted and cared for the Samaritans in a manner that completely negated their “untouchable” status in the eyes of many.

So, despite widespread Jewish antipathy, it is not surprising that the early Church recognized Samaritans as equal to Jews. Many Christians spread through the area of Samaria (Acts 8:1), and the evangelist Philip taught there (Acts 5:3-8). Significantly, the leading apostles Peter and John were sent on a special mission to the area in order to confirm those Samaritans who had been baptized by Philip (Acts 8:14-17) – to show that their acceptance was the official position of the Church.The ready acceptance of Christianity by many Samaritans is likely due to their expectation of a Taheb or “Restorer,” a messiah-like figure whom they understood would be the prophet like Moses foretold in the Scriptures (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18). The Taheb, they thought, would be so much like God that anyone who believed in him would believe in the Taheb’s Lord (God himself).

In his ministry, Jesus had taught that the time was coming when worship in the temples of both Jerusalem and Samaria would no longer be important (John 4:21), and the conversion of Samaritans was one of the first steps in the realization of that truth. The acceptance of Christianity by many Samaritans became a clear intermediate step between the preaching of the Gospel to the Jews and to the Gentiles – just as Christ had predicted (Acts 2).​Even today a few ethnic Samaritans still survive in their homeland – mainly in the city of Nablus in northern Israel – and have maintained their traditional identity and worship. Some Samaritan Christians also maintain their faith – descendants of the second oldest Christian community in the world, and the only group of believers founded outside of Judea by Jesus himself. ​

Have you ever heard the explanation that the meaning of the word “sin” in the Bible is to “miss the mark”?

​To some extent the words translated “sin” in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament can convey this meaning. In the Book of Judges we read of skilled Hebrew fighters and that “Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred select troops who were left-handed, each of whom could sling a stone at a hair and not miss” (Judges 20:16). The word “miss” in this scripture is the same Hebrew word chata often translated “sin.”

But this Hebrew word is by no means limited to the idea of missing the mark. The same word is often translated in many other ways. For example, we find the various forms of this word are translated as: “bear the blame,” “bear the loss,” “bewildered,” “cleanse,” “forfeit,” “indicted,” “miss,” “offended,” “purged,” “purified,” “reach,” and in other ways.

So it is certainly an over-simplification to say that the word sin means to “miss the mark” like an arrow that does not quite hit the bull’s eye of the target. There is another problem with this view. To understand sin as simply “missing the mark” makes it seem almost like not getting a perfect score on a test – to miss the “perfect” mark and only get 85% or perhaps to “only just miss” and to score a 98 or 99% out of 100. Such a view makes sin seem to be a matter of degree – only a problem to the extent we “miss the mark.” It encourages us to think that our failures are perhaps not as bad as those of others. You may well have heard people say “Well, I may do this [smoke, swear, tell “white lies” or whatever], but it is not like I do that [steal, cheat, murder or whatever].” Thinking that sin means essentially to “miss the mark” is to make sin relative and perhaps even reasonable if it is only “slightly less than perfect.”

So is there a better way to understand the concept of sin? If we gather all the instances in which sin is mentioned in the Old Testament (and in which the Hebrew word is clearly talking about sin and not something else), the underlying or common thread between them is perhaps closer to alienation. Sin is that which offends or breaks our relationship with God or with others.

The New Testament shows us clearly that anything that breaks the law of God is sin (1 John 3:4) – regardless of “degree” – and it is interesting to notice that the first time sin (chata) is specifically mentioned in the Bible we find a parallel definition: “If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (Genesis 4:7). Here we see sin is simply not doing what is right.

The earliest example of sin – even if the word is not used there – is of course the Garden of Eden story where Adam and Eve are shown to have cut themselves off from God through their sinful behavior (Genesis 3:6-8). This aspect of separation is nowhere made clearer than in the Book of Isaiah: “But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear” (Isaiah 59:2).

So it can be a mistake to think of sin as merely missing the mark. Our unrepented sins cut us off from God no matter how small they may be, and sin always affects our relationships with others in some way. To see sin as simply to “miss the mark” may be to miss the point – “missing the mark” misses the fact that sin separates and ultimately breaks relationships. Sin is never relative, abstract or impersonal – it is always absolute, concrete and personal. That is why we should not think of sin as simply missing something. It is breaking something that we need to take to God to forgive and fix.

“There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts and civilizations — these are mortal. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously” (C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, p. 46).

C. S. Lewis penned these words over three-quarters of a century ago, but their significance is perhaps even clearer today as a result of modern psychology. In the book What Makes Us Tick? The Ten Desires That Drive Us (2013), psychologist and social commentator Hugh Mackay stresses that the primary need of human beings – once the basic biological needs of food, sleep, etc., are taken care of – is “to be taken seriously.” Mackay’s research indicates that knowing we are of worth is more important to human beings than any other psychological need or desire.

Why do we have this need to be taken seriously? We might well be able to survive without it; but as Christians we might well suspect that this, like any need, is there for a reason. Could it be that we all have a deep innate need to be taken seriously in order to help us to take other people seriously? Could it be that is one of the lessons this life gives us opportunity to learn?

The word of God certainly shows that God takes people seriously. When Scripture tells us he is not willing that any should perish (2 Peter 3:9), it means that he takes everyone seriously. When God repeatedly told ancient Israel to be kind to strangers among them (Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:34, Deuteronomy 10:19, etc.), he was commanding them to see them as people like themselves – to take them seriously.

And when we look at the life and ministry of Jesus, it is clear that he took people seriously. He took sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors seriously, although most everyone else in that society did not. He took women seriously in an age when most did not. He took Samaritans and Phoenicians – those of entirely different religious backgrounds – seriously, just as he took doubters within his own faith seriously. Uniquely in that age, he even took those who perhaps had no understanding of faith at all – little children – seriously.

In some ways, Jesus’ determination to take everyone seriously was one of the most radical aspects of his ministry and his message, and it is an approach that we who try to follow him must never forget. But do we take those who live contrary to the Way in which we believe seriously? It is a question we can ask of any group, of any individual. Do we take fellow Christians in other denominations seriously? Do we really take those of other political, social, religious, economic, or regional backgrounds to ours as seriously as we should?​Ultimately, we must all ask “Do we take every human being seriously?” It is one of the most fundamental messages within the Scriptures that God takes every individual seriously, and that we should also.

“… And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8).

Most of us are familiar with the concept of “Lady Justice” – we may have seen statues and paintings of her holding a sword in one hand and a balance scale in the other. The sword, of course, represents punishment and justice itself, and the balance scale symbolizes the idea of fairness in the justice dispensed. And if we look closely at these representations of the figure of Justice, we see she is usually wearing a blindfold – symbolic of total impartiality in justice.

The Bible stresses the same concepts of justice and fairness – or justice and mercy as it calls them – as we see in Micah’s words “to act justly and to love mercy” as well as the words of Zechariah “…Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another” (Zechariah 7:9), and the words of Christ “…you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness….” (Matthew 23:23).

But we must be careful when it comes to the blindfold. God’s word encourages us to be involved in the dispensation of justice and mercy – to interact with the individuals to whom these principles must be applied in our roles as parents, supervisors, or whatever. But biblically, we cannot be impartial. We cannot temper justice with mercy if we don’t look at the circumstances involved, and in the same way, we cannot temper mercy with judgment if we do not look at the attitudes involved.

From a biblical perspective we do need to see clearly what is involved in each instance where we may be in a position to dispense justice or punishment, just as we must where we might need to grant mercy or forgiveness. Certainly we must not judge by appearances, as Christ confirmed: “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge the righteous judgment” (John 7:24).

But we must not judge blindly – we must learn to look below the surface and judge matters of justice and mercy without the blindfold of social pressure that sometimes may lean unduly toward mercy, or conversely the blindfold of our human nature that may lean unduly toward justice. Either of those blindfolds can obscure what we need to see.

The word of God encourages us to see situations needing justice or mercy clearly, but through the lens of its teachings rather than through those of social pressure or human nature. We may understand this and know the importance of applying both justice and mercy, but how well do we know the scriptures that apply to doing just that? It’s a simple enough study (search “justice” and “mercy” in a concordance or on a Bible website with search capabilities such as BibleGateway.com) and one we should all do at some point: preferably before situations arise needing the application of justice or mercy rather than after they do.

Ultimately, knowing the Scriptures and being guided by them is the only way we can properly hold the sword and the scale in our everyday lives as Christians. It’s the only way we can express love through a right balance of justice and mercy, and the only way to do it without being blindfolded.

Recent statistics suggest that as many as 40% to 50% of marriages in some developed countries end in divorce. The divorce statistics for second and third marriages are even higher (practice evidently does not improve performance), and these sad statistics underline the even more unfortunate truth that many of these divorces were undoubtedly preventable.

While some marriage splits are, of course, the result of adultery, drugs, alcohol, spousal abuse and other problems, the great majority of divorces claim “irreconcilable differences” as the reason for dissolution of the marriage bond. This is where the aspect of preventability enters into the picture. “Irreconcilable differences” is really just an expensive way of saying “incompatibility,” and at the heart of many divorces – and of problem marriages which somehow stay together – it is incompatibility that is so often cited as the underlying problem.

Now in most all cases where incompatibility is cited as an issue, it was not present at the beginning of the relationship (we doubt many couples who always considered themselves incompatible get married) – it is something the marriage partners feel “happened” as time progressed. But the truth is, incompatibility between a man and a woman usually never just “happens” – it is present, under the surface, all the time. It is simply that marriages begin to falter when couples begin to focus on their incompatibility. A century ago, in his book What’s Wrong with the World, G.K. Chesterton put it this way:

“I have known many happy marriages, but never a compatible one. The whole aim of marriage is to fight through and survive the instant when incompatibility becomes unquestionable. For a man and a woman, as such, are incompatible.”

These may be among the wisest words ever written on marriage problems. They are based on the undeniable fact that most marriages occur because “opposites attract.” But when marriage begins we are focusing on the “attract.” As marriages progress, if we are not careful, the focus switches to looking at, and dwelling on, the “opposites.” Our point of view shifts and we begin to see our relationship differently – and as we do, the problems develop.

Simple as it may sound, the quality of every marriage, and every day within every marriage, depends on how we look at our partner. We must remember it is not that beneath the attraction there are differences we must somehow try to suppress, but that the differences between us are so often the root and cause of the attraction itself – and we mean not just the sexual aspect, but the full range of psychological, spiritual and physical attraction.

A happy marriage is, then, always one of managed incompatibility. We can certainly do what we can to make it easier for our mates to deal with our differences where they are problematic (Romans 14:19 – “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.”), but each mate must concentrate on how he or she sees the other – we must continue to look at the attractive things about him or her. There is perhaps no more helpful scripture on this fact than the words of the apostle Paul:

“Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable — if anything is excellent or praiseworthy — think about such things” (Philippians 4:8).

We render this wonderful advice useless by consigning it to nice thoughts about pleasant ethereal things. But this approach is a potent marriage problem solver. If we apply these words in the sphere of our relationship with our mate – in constantly looking for, affirming, complimenting the good things we appreciate about each other on every level – the matter of incompatibility usually becomes increasingly a non-issue.

Incompatibility is not the destroyer of marriage; it is the healthy tension that forms the basis of meaningful marriage relationships. The more we begin to see each other in a positive way and keep our focus there, the more we see attraction and the less we see opposites. In fact, we become more and more able to celebrate our incompatibility – and good things happen when we do. In the words of Genesis: “He created them male and female and blessed them….” (Genesis 5:2). We see God blessed the marriage relationships not generically as unisex, unithought, uniform pairs of mankind, but blessed us as male and female – blessed us in our differences.

Many users of pornography do not understand that like drugs, pornography does have physical, measurable, negative effects on the human brain. Most medical studies confirming this fact have been conducted with men, though there is clear evidence that women can also be affected.

Simply put, sexually explicit material triggers “mirror neurons” in the brain. These are the neurons involved in mimicking behavior and in the case of pornography, the mirror neuron system triggers arousal in the brain, which leads to growing sexual tension and a corresponding desire for release. The problem, according to Professor William M. Struthers, a psychologist at Wheaton College, is that “ … this leads to hormonal and neurological consequences, which bind [the man] to the object he is focusing on.” Pornography thus enslaves its users to its images in the sense that the biological response intended to bond a man and woman are transferred, thus loosening the bond between them and forming a bond with the pornography itself.

But this is only the beginning. In men, a primary chemical involved in sexual arousal which is affected by pornography use is dopamine, and it is well known that dopamine plays a major role in reward-driven learning. Many studies have shown that rewarded behaviors increase the level of dopamine transmission in the brain (the basis of addictions to drugs such as cocaine, amphetamine, and methamphetamine which act directly on the dopamine system). Dopamine production peaks in the brain when an individual is exposed to stimuli which are novel – especially if the stimuli are sexual. This is why pornography users become trapped in endlessly seeking new images – because they have trained themselves to be unsatisfied with the same stimulus.

As a result, viewing erotic images of numerous individuals can actually trigger more dopamine production than sex with an actual partner. In this way, pornography leads to a psychological addiction that teaches the brain that images are more satisfying – and the user becomes, in turn, less satisfied with his or her real partner (a process known to psychologists and ethnologists as the “Coolidge effect,” which affects mammalian males and to some extent females). With individuals not in sexual relationships the addiction is still firmly formed, and sexual relations within eventual marriage are doomed to prove less satisfying and less likely to hold the relationship together.

One of the final destructive effects of this cycle is that the overstimulation of the psychological reward process which occurs with repeated pornography-stimulated dopamine production creates actual desensitization; the brain doesn't respond as much as it used to do and the individual actually feels less reward from pleasure. Over time, that same desensitization causes porn users to have to work ever harder to accomplish feelings of satisfaction through more, more frequent, or more extreme sexual stimuli. The cycle is endlessly ongoing; and the more porn is used, the more numb the brain becomes.

Telling users that pornography debases or exploits women (although completely true) often has little effect because users are usually into porn for self-centered gratification which is elevated above the happiness of others; but porn users are themselves being harmed. A University of Sydney study found that those using porn regularly were more likely to have severe social and relationship problems and were more likely to lose their jobs, their relationships, and to get in trouble with the law. But if a user can understand what is actually happening to his or her “brain on porn,” it can help the person to realize that the happiness which is ultimately and most severely compromised by porn is their own.

“Any man or woman who wrongs another in any way … must make full restitution for the wrong they have done, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the person they have wronged” (Numbers 5:6–7). The concept of restitution in the Old Testament is often said to refer to repayment of stolen property, but Numbers 5:6-7 makes it clear that the principle is broader and should be applied if we wrong another “in any way.” We also have other Old Testament scriptures specifically showing restitution for any type of loss we cause. For example: “If a man borrows an animal from his neighbor and it is injured or dies ... he must make restitution” (Exodus 22:1, 3-6, 14). Certainly, if we have intentionally or even unintentionally defrauded anyone of anything, we should make restitution for what we have taken. We see a clear example of this in the New Testament where Luke tells us that when Jesus was passing through Jericho, “A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy” (Luke 19:2). Unfortunately, some of this man’s wealth may have come from overcharging on the taxes he had power to collect. But Zacchaeus told Jesus: “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount” (Luke 19:8). Zacchaeus doubtless knew that the law only commanded him to repay with an additional fifth of what he had taken, but he was glad to pay back with even greater restitution. Jesus welcomed this repentant attitude and stated that salvation had come to the tax collector that day (Luke 19:9). Clearly, Jesus approved of Zacchaeus’ attitude of restitution, and the New Testament records the tax collector’s words for our edification. So is there a principle in these biblical verses from which we can learn and one we can apply today? How about the item we borrowed from a friend and damaged in some way before we returned it? Or what about the time we were over at our friend’s home and accidentally knocked over a vase or spilled a staining beverage on their new carpet? It’s often considered polite for the host to gloss over such accidents, but as Christians we should always consider the principle of restitution – to insist on paying to clean the carpet we have stained or to replace the item we damaged. If the person whose property we have damaged will not accept direct restitution, then a gift of something else might certainly be appropriate according to the spirit of the principle of restitution. While people may say the damage we have caused does not matter, humanly, it often does matter. Restitution can help others not be upset as they may feel deep down that the right thing would be to have insisted on paying for our damage. As Mark Twain candidly noted in a different context: “When a man says it’s not the money, it’s the principle of the thing – it’s the money.” Even when people are gracious about loss we cause them, the principle of restitution is the application of love and the “golden rule.” So consider applying the principle of restitution in your own life. Did you lose or damage a borrowed item? – Why not replace it with something better? Did you borrow a friend’s car? – How about returning it with more gasoline than it had when you started out? There are many ways we can apply the principle of restitution. It may not be a “law” we are obligated to keep, but it’s a principle we should want to follow.

“When I smiled at them, they scarcely believed it; the light of my face was precious to them” (Job 29:24).

You probably know that studies have found that smiling is good for you. Carefully controlled psychological experiments have proven that we are happy because we smile just as much as we smile because we are happy. Smiling – even forced smiling – has been found to relieve stress, and a 2010 study published in Psychological Science even showed that smile intensity in photographs predicted longevity.

But did you know that at least one study has found that the single most effective thing a person can usually do to enhance his or her relationships with other people is … to smile more often? So in the title to this post I do not mean to be flippant in paraphrasing the biblical injunction “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 5:16, KJV). Letting our “light” shine is clearly more than just smiling, it involves our “good works” – the whole range of our behavior and interactions with others – yet if smiling is such an important component of our relationships with others, shouldn’t we indeed smile more often?

We may not be able to find biblical verses saying “Jesus smiled,” but in his classic work The Humor of Christ, Elton Trueblood lists thirty passages showing the humor of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. There are many other examples in the Bible of things being said with evident humor that suggest smiles were often present on the faces of God’s servants (for example, 1 Kings 18:27); and verses like “Our mouths were filled with laughter, our tongues with songs of joy” (Psalm 126:2) had to involve smiling.

The point is, walking in God’s ways should produce smiles at least a portion of the time. This is particularly true because feelings of care and affection are frequently accompanied by smiles – if we are concerned and caring for others we will naturally smile even, sometimes, despite our own circumstances. In fact, just as experiments have found we can make ourselves happy by smiling, we can also make others happy by smiling at them. So there are at least two good reasons to be smiling, but it is something many Christians don’t do as often as we might expect. A surprising number of sincere believers live under a cloud of seriousness – at its worst it can be an expression of focusing on spiritual problems rather than the answers, though more often it’s just that we forget what an impact a smile can have.

So keep this in mind when you greet the world. As they say, if you see someone without a smile, give them one of yours. It’s not meant as pop-psychology advice to make you feel better, it’s meant as a small reminder that smiling is a part of letting our light shine. It certainly isn’t the most important part, but it may be the first thing that people notice about us and – as Job mentions in the scripture quoted above – it may be one of the things they firmly remember.

Emergency services personnel are judged by how quickly they respond to emergencies, Presidents are judged on how quickly they respond to crises, companies are judged on how quickly they respond to customer service requests, and kids are often judged by their peers on how quickly they respond to computer game prompts. In the age of now, speed is king in many areas of life, and rapid responses are desired everywhere.

Unfortunately, fast reflexes and rapid responses are not always good things. They may look cool in action movies, but when it comes to character and personality traits in everyday life, rapid responses are often counterproductive and harmful. That’s something that is stressed time and again in the Book of Proverbs – the Bible’s book of distilled wisdom for everyday living. Notice these few examples from some different areas of life:

Proverbs 18:13 To answer before listening – that is folly and shame.Proverbs 19:2b ... one who acts hastily sins. (HCSB)Proverbs 21:5 The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty.Proverbs 25:8 Don’t take a matter to court hastily. (HCSB)Proverbs 29:20 Do you see someone who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool...

It can be a valuable study to look through the verses mentioning “haste” and “hurry” in Proverbs, but it’s not just that biblical book that decries hasty thoughts, words and deeds. Notice what the apostle James says in the New Testament: “Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath” (James 1:19-20 ).

Why is this – why does the Bible so often condemn rapid response behavior? The answer is simply because our first reactions are almost always our most human ones – the ones based in our own human nature; and as a result, our rapid responses can sometimes be rabid responses (Jeremiah 17:9, Matthew 15:19).

The right response often needs time for us to get over our primary emotional reaction – time to get our brain in gear and to remember the principles we have learned of God’s way of life. It’s only then, after we have taken the seconds, minutes or even hours we may need to arrive at an appropriate response, that we can be confident that our reaction is the right one – and in most of our interactions with others, a right response is better than a rapid response every time.

So take heart – even if you don’t have the super-fast response times of an action hero or a game console warrior – you may be better off with slower responses! In fact, it can often be a good decision to leave rapid responses to the professionals who need them in their work. In our own personal lives we need right responses so much more!

Have you ever noticed, when reading the Gospels, how often we are told that Jesus noticed something, saw something? We are frequently told that he observed those around him: “Seeing the woman…,” “seeing the man …,” “seeing the people...,” “seeing their faith …,”–even noticing small details of people’s expressions: “seeing he had become sad…” (Luke 18:24). It is clear that Jesus was observant, and although his eyes took in no more than those of others, it is clear that rather than just looking at people Jesus saw them in a way that others did not – it is as if he thought about everyone he saw. Do we have that kind of focus, or do we go through each day so busy and absorbed in our own lives that we are conscious of others, but not clearly seeing them in focus? The truth is, we can’t love without looking – seeing – comprehending. Perhaps part of the answer is that if we see ourselves as the servants of others, we will see them differently – as Christ did. The apostle Paul put it this way: “In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who … made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant…” (Philippians 2:5-7). Think of an attentive waiter in a fine restaurant, or a rich person’s personal servant. A servant certainly watches those he is responsible for – staying aware and looking out for any need that may occur. And a person’s servant doesn’t just stop at noticing the need – the servant obviously acts swiftly to take care of it. That’s what the Gospels show was the natural corollary of Jesus seeing people the way he did – he didn’t stop at seeing them, he immediately responded to what he saw: “seeing the woman he said …,” “seeing their faith he [healed]…,” “seeing the crowd he [asked] ‘Where are we to buy bread, so that these people may eat?’” (John 6:5). Jesus saw and then acted with compassion according to what he saw. So seeing people in a focused way was only the first half of what he accomplished with his observant attitude. Always, the seeing led to acting in some manner in order to help those who needed help. We too can accomplish so much more when we train our minds to really see the people around us, to focus on them and to ask ourselves what do they need and is there a way we can serve them. It’s not just about giving physical things; it’s just as much about seeing people’s emotional and spiritual needs. But it takes a kind of awakening of the eyes to see like that – we won’t do it unless we think about doing it. Perhaps that’s part of what the prophet Isaiah meant when he wrote: “Then the eyes of those who see will no longer be closed…” (Isaiah 32:3). He wasn’t talking about the blind, but those who see coming to really see. That may primarily mean coming to see spiritual truth, of course, but it can also mean coming to see others as we should see them – through the eyes of a servant.

We all know the wisdom of the old saying that we should “forgive and forget” and although that exact phrase does not appear in the Bible, it does summarize Biblical principles of forgiveness.

There are, of course, many scriptures telling us that we should forgive others when they harm us in some way (see, for example, Matthew 6:14, and Ephesians 4:32), but what about the “forget” part of the equation?

There is also clear biblical evidence that we should forget as well as forgive if we are to imitate God. Notice both aspects of forgiveness in this scripture which appears in both the Old and the New Testaments: “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34 and Hebrews 8:12).

How do we apply this? It is hard enough to forgive others, but how are we to possibly forget – especially in those situations where it seems humanly impossible to forget things done to us, perhaps truly evil things? We should realize that psychologically, and spiritually, not forgetting keeps old wounds open and means we may suffer endlessly from the actions of others, so we should certainly make every effort to forget – and we can ask God’s help with this, just as we might ask His help to forgive. But I have known people who have been hurt by others so badly that despite their best efforts and sincere prayer, forgetting seems impossible. Such people may say “I have forgiven them, but I just can’t forget what they did.”

The answer to these situations where it seems impossible to “forget” – despite our full desire to forgive – is that we must understand what the Bible means by “remember their sins no more.” In Biblical Hebrew, the word zakhar which we translate “remember” has a broader meaning than just “remember” in the sense of “not forgetting.” Zakhar also includes the results of remembering – the actions we do as a result of remembering. It is in this sense that the Bible tells us God “remembered” Noah after the Flood (Genesis 8:1) or God “remembered” Abraham (Genesis 19:29). In cases like these examples the Bible tells us not that God suddenly thought about His servants whom He had forgotten for a while – it tells us that in “remembering” them God did something about them – causing the flood to recede on the one hand, or rescuing Lot as Abraham had asked on the other.

So God doesn’t expect or require us to do the psychologically impossible. He just requires that we don’t remember the sins of others against us in the sense of not acting on the memory – not holding the sin against them or punishing them in any way for it – just as he does not punish us when He does not remember our sins (Jeremiah 31:34).

God does require that we forgive those that sin against us, and He does require that we do not actively “remember” those sins. But in the same way, He doesn't want us to act on “remembering” our own sins by painfully reliving them or being “haunted” by them in discouragement. God knows that it is psychologically and spiritually healthier for us to forget our own sins and the sins of others, once forgiven; but even when the memories linger despite our best efforts, He simply requires us not to act negatively on those memories.

The Bible gives us good advice on how to deal with feelings of anger - something that we all experience from time to time. However, perhaps the clearest and most detailed example of this strategy comes from an unexpected source which most people miss in their reading of the Bible: an example from the life of Christ himself. See the short article we have uploaded to our Strategic Understanding page today: "Not Rushing to Anger."

Every year Hollywood, the US, and even many around the world turn to the Academy Awards ceremony to see credit being given to leading actors, actresses, directors, producers and a host of others who work behind the scenes. Not only are the awards intended to give credit, but those receiving them frequently take a great amount of time, while basking in the spotlight, to thank everyone who supported their work – and if you have ever watched them, you know that sometimes means everyone. This giving of credit is all well and good to a point, though it can often seem artificial under the stage lights when we compare how infrequently we tend to give credit to others in real life situations. But there is plenty of biblical precedent for giving appreciative credit to others in our daily lives. A great example is found in 1 Samuel where David insisted that all who had helped him in a military campaign should receive credit and proper reward. Speaking to his followers who wanted to give credit only to those directly involved in the fighting, we find: “David replied ‘No, my brothers … The share of the man who stayed with the supplies is to be the same as that of him who went down to the battle. All will share alike.’ David made this a statute and ordinance for Israel from that day to this” (1 Samuel 30:23-25). Not only did David credit all who had taken part in the campaign, but also, when he reached Ziklag, he sent some of the captured goods to the elders of Judah in recognition of their support, saying, “Here is a gift for you from the plunder of the LORD’s enemies” (1 Samuel 30:26). Further, Samuel tells us, David sent some of the spoil to a great number of towns in the kingdom recognizing their help and support. The list is long (and almost Oscar like!) as David gives credit to: “…those who were in Bethel, Ramoth Negev and Jattir; to those in Aroer, Siphmoth, Eshtemoa and Rakal; to those in the towns of the Jerahmeelites and the Kenites; to those in Hormah, Bor Ashan, Athak and Hebron …” (1 Samuel 30:30). Notice that even this long list is not complete as vs. 31 adds “and to those in all the other places where he and his men had roamed.” So David used the opportunity to give credit not only to all who had helped him directly or indirectly in his campaign, but also to all of his friends and supporters who were not even involved – but who had supported him to that time. It’s a point worth remembering. David gave credit widely and generously. It was clearly part of his character and something we can remember in our own relationships with the people with whom we live and work. There is also another side to this. If we conscientiously pay attention to giving credit to those who have helped us or worked alongside us in any of life’s endeavors, we will perhaps be more likely to be aware of, and to give credit to, the One who so often helps us behind the scenes and to whom credit is always due!

All societies have their hot-button issues. Here in the US it might be immigration, minimum wage, health care or a number of other things. Whatever the topic, however, these hot-button issues share the commonality that they are not usually topics brought up in casual conversation with people we do not know well. People learn that society functions more smoothly when we don’t discuss one of these issues in the process of going for a dental checkup or picking up our dry cleaning. Nevertheless, because these issues are often not discussed openly and widely and do not affect everyone, they often fester under the surface - breeding resentment and frustration for many. Nationally, it often seems as though there is little we can do to change this situation. One encouraging fact, however, is that since the economy has worsened to the degree it has and affected so many people, we now find it a widespread enough problem that we can easily discuss this topic with relative strangers - with individuals voicing what they feel might help without offense or anger. All marriages have their hot button issues. They might be finances, children, in-laws or several other topics, but married people all too often learn that things go more smoothly when we don’t discuss finances over the breakfast table or the in-laws as we drive off on vacation. But because these issues are so often argued about, then swept under the rug as acknowledged hot-button issues, they may linger at the back of our minds and bring resentment and frustration. The answer, however, is always to talk these things through. The time and place need to be chosen carefully, and ground rules should always be agreed upon before the discussion begins. We especially need to be able to agree that mutual respect trumps any individual issue and we need to be able to agree to disagree, to find compromise, to work together as much as possible. Unlike national hot-button issues which may only affect certain groups or be championed by them, family hot-buttons affect everyone in the family and need bilateral, husband and wife cooperation. The good news is that even though our national economic problems are far from solved, we have learned to talk about them and in many cases to focus on what can be done about those problems in areas where improvement might be possible. For marriages, this principle is even better news. By acknowledging the problems and talking about them, we have hope of improvement. The essential point is that we need to learn to talk about - and work to defuse our family hot-buttons rather than ignoring them or pressing them. That’s not only how bomb disposal works, but also how marriages grow.

Should you always tell the truth? If you don’t know what the Bible says on this topic you may be surprised! But first, let me state clearly that the Bible makes it very clear we should not lie (read Proverbs 12:22 and John 8:44, for example, if you have any doubt about that). This blog post is not advocating lying, or practicing a lifestyle of deception, in any way, shape or form. But the fact that we should not lie does not mean that we always need to tell the truth we know – as in telling all the truth. Many new Christians, and even those who have been in the Way for many years, have not thought this through. Some, in their desire to do what is right, unnecessarily harm themselves and others by a lack of understanding in this area when saying more than necessary can have unfortunate or even serious consequences. The old World War II conundrum of Nazis at the door looking for people sheltering Jewish families comes immediately to mind, but there are many lesser instances of this kind of situation. The point is, we clearly cannot always vocalize the truth, or all of it, without hurting or even endangering others. I think many of us confuse biblical responsibility in this area with courtroom protocol. The legal injunction to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” is firmly fixed in most people’s minds regarding the subject of telling the truth and that colors our thinking in other areas. Naturally, in any legal situation, if we give our word that we will tell the whole truth that is what we should do, but life is not a courtroom; the necessity of voicing everything we know is not usually an issue. But there are times when it is simply better to refrain from speaking the truth if the truth does not need to be spoken or might have consequences in which someone is harmed. This principle is clearly supported by at least one example in the Bible. In I Samuel we read that after Israel’s first king, Saul, sinned and disqualified himself from kingship, God told His servant Samuel to go to Bethlehem to anoint David, one of the sons of Jesse, as the new king. Samuel was naturally worried about the repercussions of doing this: “But Samuel said, 'How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me' ” (I Samuel 16:2). Now notice God’s reply to Samuel in the same verse – His instruction on how to handle this situation – “The LORD said, 'Take a heifer with you and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.” Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.’ ” Here it is God Himself telling Samuel that rather than speaking the whole truth about why he was going to Bethlehem, Samuel should simply speak something equally true, but not the part of the truth that might get him killed. There is a clear lesson in this story that we should always speak the truth when we do speak, but when people may be hurt or endangered by what we say, the truth, or all of it, does not always need to be spoken. It is also a clear example of what Christ meant in saying that we should be “wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matthew 10:16).

They’re the Biblical characters we “love to hate” – the friends who said more unfriendly things than they should have done, the friends God reproved for what they said. Yet were they all bad? This week, on the Tactical Living page, we reproduce a short article by Lenny Caccio on exactly this topic. Lenny makes an excellent case that we should look at Job’s friends again and that they were taught a lesson from which we can all learn. Lenny’s article also will form a great introduction for another one we have planned for the near future. The two articles should dovetail perfectly, so don’t miss Lenny’s take on "Job's Friends" and be on the lookout for a sequel on this same topic.

How do your words taste? Normally we would say that words have sound rather than taste, of course, but there is a difference between the actual sound of a word and the effect it has on its hearers. We get by in English by saying “that doesn’t sound too good” when words have a negative or disturbing impact, but perhaps “taste” makes more sense in such situations. Words can certainly taste good: “How sweet are your words to my taste,” David wrote – “sweeter than honey to my mouth!” (Psalm 119:103), but words don’t always taste sweet at all. Recently, I couldn’t help hearing a parent berating her child in a store, for what appeared to be a very minor thing. It wasn’t just the words that were used, but also the tone and the obvious effect on the child and on others in the store - which was something like tasting a mouthful of vinegar. That is something Job discovered when he was subjected to the negative, doubting and finally judgmental words of the “friends” who supposedly came to comfort him. Notice what Job says in this regard after tasting a few helpings of his friends' words: “Does not the ear test words as the palate tastes food?” (Job 12:11). Job is confirming what most of us come to know as we go through life – a person’s words can truly have a good effect on us, or they can be something that leaves the equivalent of a bad taste in our mouths. It is something we all should consider. Bad "tasting" words don’t just include curses and profanity, they can be any words that pull down or discourage others. We may not mean them that way, but unless we think about the effects of our words, we may not realize what they are doing. On the other hand, restrained and carefully chosen words can help those who need guidance or encouragement. The proverb that tells us “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver” (Proverbs 25:11) really makes this point. The original Hebrew may actually mean “apricots” rather than apples, but the specific fruit hardly matters (unless you greatly prefer one over the other!). When our words build up and encourage rather than just convey raw facts – or worse yet, pull down those around us – then they might indeed be said to taste like honey or sweet, ripe fruit. It’s something to remember. Next time you are tempted to say something negative or critical, think about the fact that the words we use have a “taste” that affects others by building them up or pulling them down. Only you can decide what the taste will be - whether your words will encourage or discourage, whether they will have the taste of vinegar or the taste of honey.

“Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest’ “ (Matthew 9:37-38). Although these verses are usually interpreted to mean that we should pray for more people to come to the knowledge of the truth who could join the work, it seems to me that they may just as well mean that we should pray that laborers who are available, but not in the field, should get involved in the harvest. If that is the case, then we should all be praying for help to see what we can be doing, not just for others to come along who will do the work. In any event, it is clear that we are told to pray earnestly (the Greek word is a form of deomai signifying “beseeching” or even "begging"). We can hardly pray in this manner without personal involvement in the need for which we pray. How? We can pray earnestly for more workers to be called, or to become involved, for their needs, and for the success of their work. What else can we do? Certainly we can help financially, as we are able, to support good work where it is being done [Note: TacticalChristianity.org does not accept donations or gifts], but prayer always must be the first priority. That’s what Jesus stressed. On the other hand, other scriptures do show the necessity of helping those workers who “go out” into the harvest. Notice the words of John in this regard: “Beloved, it is a faithful thing you do in all your efforts for these brothers, strangers as they are … You will do well to send them on their journey in a manner worthy of God. For they have gone out for the sake of the name … Therefore we ought to support people like these, that we may be fellow workers for the truth” (3 John 1:5-8 ESV). So, even if it is not our calling to personally go out into the “harvest field,” there is much that we can do to support those who do go and to be “fellow workers.” The “advertisement” for help needed has already been published. It is up to us to respond today!

It’s the kind of verse that is easy to read over without noticing anything unusual about it, but Leviticus 19:3 specifically ties two of the ten commandments together: “Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths ...” What do the commandments to keep the Sabbath and honor our parents have in common? It’s not just that they are the two positively expressed commandments – there are a number of other similarities that you may find interesting. More importantly, this isn’t just a Ten Commandments trivia question. The fourth and fifth commandments share a connection which can help us better keep them both. Take a look at this week’s new article, “The Positive Commandments”, and see what those positive connections are.